Posts Tagged ‘ Mike Castle ’

Christine O’Donnell Upsets Republican Plans for the Senate, and Other Tales from This Week’s Primaries

Friday, September 17th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

What looked to be a reasonably predictable final Tuesday of the 2010 primary season was taken over by the shock of the chattering classes at the victory of Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP senatorial contest.  Indeed, the interpretation of Christine O’Donnell’s win has become as interesting as the win itself.

It’s not as though there were not abundant warnings: PPP released a poll the Sunday before the primary showing O’Donnell ahead.  But I suspect that what’s shocked Republican observers in particular was the failure of a last-minute effort by the Delaware GOP and the state’s leading newspaper to destroy O’Donnell by exposing her history of financial malfeasance.

As voters went to the polls on Tuesday, the buzz around Washington was that Castle would be just fine.  The probable assumption was that Tea Party supporters would subordinate their ideological concerns about Castle to horror at O’Donnell’s “irresponsibility,” so like the “deadbeats” that many conservatives think brought on the housing and financial crises.  It didn’t happen.

In any event, as even more stories of O’Donnell’s personal and ideological wackiness spread, and as national GOP figures began publicly to write her off (Democrat Chris Coons has assumed a big lead in post-primary polls), the Senate landscape has shifted, with more pressure than ever on Republicans to win close races in Wisconsin, Washington, Colorado and California, and perhaps put Connecticut or West Virginia into play.

The dog that didn’t quite bark on Tuesday was in New Hampshire, where Ovide Lamontagne, who was receiving some of the same (minus Sarah Palin) last-minute national right-wing support enjoyed by O’Donnell,  missed upsetting Kelly Ayotte in that state’s Senate primary by less than one percent.  My guess is that the collapse in support for a third candidate, rich businessman (and “proudly pro-choice”) Bill Binnie, saved Ayotte, which is ironic since Binnie made this race competitive in the first place by running heavy attack ads on Ayotte throughout the summer.  Lamontagne would not have been in as hopeless position as O’Donnell in a general election, in part because NH is a lot more amenable to Republicans than DE, but Ayotte’s a better bet for Republicans, though Democrat Paul Hodes was relatively close in the first post-primary poll.

In Wisconsin, longtime front-runner Scott Walker put away Mark Neumann by a surprisingly large 20% margin in the Republican gubernatorial primary.  He will now be in a competitive general election contest against Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett.

Meanwhile, in New York, where no one really expects the Republican gubernatorial or senate nominees to have much of a prayer against Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Chuck Shumer, the GOP suffered an embarrassment when party stalwart Rick Lazio got trounced for the gubernatorial nomination by the rather eccentric self-funder and Tea Party favorite Carl Paladino.  As the New York Times put it:

It put at the top of the party’s ticket a volatile newcomer who has forwarded e-mails to friends containing racist jokes and pornographic images, espoused turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients could be given classes on hygiene, and defended an ally’s comparison of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who is Jewish, to “an Antichrist or a Hitler.”

In House races, Delaware was again the state that supplied the major upset, as another Tea Partier, Glenn Urquhart, defeated the NRCC-recruited candidate, Michelle Roberts, for the state’s at-large House seat.  Former Lt. Gov. John Carney, the Democratic nominee, has now become one of a very select group favored to win Republican-controlled House seats.

In NH-2, in one of a smattering of competitive Democratic House primaries, Ann Kuster crushed former Lieberman for President chairman Katrina Swett by more than a two-to-one margin, and will face former Rep. Charlie Bass for the seat Bass lost to Paul Hodes in 2006.  In NH-1, ethically challenged former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta turned back a challenge from self-funder Sean Mahoney for the chance to take on Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter.  National GOP forces got the candidate they wanted in another vulnerable Democratic district, MA-10, where Jeff Perry won a shot at Democrat Bill Keating in the district vacated by Bill Delahunt.

And of course, in DC, mayor Adrian Fenty lost pretty badly to DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray in a contest where support was highly correlated to race.  Much of the local political discussion in Washington since Tuesday has focused on the question of whether Gray will continue or reverse the education reforms initiated by Fenty and his school chief, Michelle Rhee.

We’re now down to just two primaries: an October 2 runoff in Louisiana, and tomorrow’s primary in Hawaii.   The marquee contest in the Aloha State is the Democratic gubernatorial primary matching former congressman Neil Abercrombie, who upset a lot of Democrats in Washington by resigning his House seat just before the vote on health reform, with a Republican winning the special election to replace him, and former Honolulu mayor Mufi Hannemann, who is a bit conservative by Hawaii Democratic standards.  Hannemann has a financial advantage, but Abercrombie has maintained a small but steady lead in the available polls.  The winner of the primary will be favored in November to defeat Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona, and flip the state from R to D governance.

Will Conservative Activists Win in Delaware and New Hampshire Primaries?

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Today marks the last big primary day of the midterm cycle.  Following these eight contests, only Hawaii, this Saturday, and a runoff in Louisiana on October 2, remain on the calendar.

Most of the national attention during the week prior to these primaries has been focused on the two states with competitive Republican Senate primaries, Delaware and New Hampshire.  In both states, late surges by conservative candidates threaten not only to upset establishment-backed front-runners, but also to make these seats far more difficult for Republicans to win in November.

Delaware

The Delaware race has been particularly characterized by late dramatics.  From the day he announced for this contest, congressman Mike Castle has been the prohibitive front-runner, not only for the nomination but for the general election as well.  Castle has won a remarkable twelve statewide elections in Delaware and has never lost.  He has the solid support of both the state and national GOP.  His challenger, religious conservative activist Christine O’Donnell, is a relative newcomer to the state (though she did win the sacrificial-lamb Senate nomination against Joe Biden two years ago) and is mainly known for extremist positions on sexual ethics.  She also has a history of serious personal financial problems, and in fact, has no visible means of support at present.  On top of everything else, she’s run a campaign against Castle heavily laden with homophobic innuendoes about her opponent’s masculinity.

Yet according to the one recent poll, released by PPP late Sunday night, O’Donnell is actually leading Castle 47-44.  She’s received late endorsements from the NRA, Sarah Palin, and Jim DeMint, but only one endorsement, from the Tea Party Express, arrived early enough to give her any kind of material assistance.  She’s benefitting, it appears, from long-simmering conservative resentment of Castle’s voting record: he’s pro-choice; he’s regularly bucked the gun lobby; he voted for TARP; and he was one of a handful of Republican House members who voted for climate change legislation in 2009.  There may be a geographical factor as well; O’Donnell seems to be doing especially well in the southern portions of the state said to be fed up with the domination of Delaware politics by populous New Castle County (Wilmington).

O’Donnell’s late endorsements and particularly the PPP poll seem to have lit a fire underneath the Castle campaign, and his supporters have been pounding O’Donnell very aggressively as voters prepared to make their choice.  One piece of raw material they’ve used is a Weekly Standard article about O’Donnell’s gender discrimination lawsuit against a Delaware-based conservative campus organization.  “O’Donnell’s finances, honesty, and stability have been called into question in light of her false and strange claims,” the article suggests.

If she survives, O’Donnell will be the instant underdog against Democrat Chris Coons, the New Castle County Executive, who’s been running a stronger race than expected against Castle.  But even if Castle pulls it out, the bad feelings from the primary could help Coons make the race competitive.

New Hampshire

Meanwhile, a more conventional if equally close Senate primary is unfolding in New Hampshire, where another originally prohibitive front-runner, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, is now hanging onto a small lead over “true conservative” activist Ovide Lamontagne, who was the GOP gubernatorial nominee back in 1996.  Ayotte does not have Castle’s kind of voting record to defend, and she’s been endorsed by Sarah Palin and some anti-abortion groups.  But she’s been caught in sort of a pincers movement. During the summer months, a self-funding businessman, Bill Binnie, spent millions attacking Ayotte’s competence and integrity, and lured her into a back-and-forth that boosted both candidates’ negatives.  Just as Binnie (who took the unconventional route of boasting about his pro-choice convictions) began to fade, Lamontagne took flight, particularly at the end of August when he secured the aggressive backing of that hardy conservative monolith, the New Hampshire Union-Leader.  The paper has focused particularly on undermining Ayotte’s conservative support, pounding her daily for agreeing to a financial settlement with Planned Parenthood over a lawsuit against the state’s parental notification law.

PPP’s last poll showed Lamontagne within seven points of Ayotte over the weekend, while another late poll, by Magellan Strategies, pegged her lead at only four points.  Jim DeMint offered Lamontagne a last-minute endorsement, and Sarah Palin’s done some robocalls for Ayotte, but the battle is pretty much between Ayotte and the Union-Leader.  As in Delaware, national party figures are unhappy with the prospects of an upset; Lamotagne is the one Republican candidate who’s trailed Democratic congressman Paul Hodes in general election polls.

Wisconsin

The other statewide contest of note is in Wisconsin, where Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker is in a heated battle with former congressman (and heavy self-funder) Mark Neumann for the Republican gubernatorial nomination to face Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D).  This race has mainly revolved around each candidate’s efforts to challenge the conservative credentials of the other, with Walker running last-minute ads attacking Neumann for voting for a large transportation bill in Congress back in 1998.  Walker’s been the front-runner all along, but Neumann’s money has made it competitive.

Washington, DC

DC Democratic voters will determine the fate of Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, who’s gotten high marks from wonks for his efforts to deal with DC’s dreadful public schools, but has actually been trailing DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray in recent polls.  This contest has exposed long-standing racial rifts; while both candidates are African-American, Fenty’s strongest base of support is among the white gentrifiers whom some African-American voters blame for pricing black folks out of traditional neighborhoods; Gray has also unsurprisingly won backing from those who oppose Fenty’s controversial school reforms.  The outcome will probably depend on turnout patterns in DC’s very diverse electorate.

Photo credit: Kevin Dooley

The General Election Heats Up

Friday, September 10th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Four days before the last big batch of primaries for the year, anticipation of the general election is already dominating most political discussions, with President Obama’s press conference yesterday being widely viewed as an effort to “go comparative” (or negative, depending on your perspective).  This tactic is designed to simultaneously energize the flagging Democratic base while convincing swing voters not to treat the election as a referendum on the status quo or on Democratic policies they may not particularly like.  You can expect other Democrats to quickly follow suit.

In the welter of recent polling data, a new Allstate/National Journal survey stands out because it detects deeper and more conflicted senses of discontent that echo the sentiments associated with the Great Depression.  Here’s part of Ron Brownstein’s analysis:

The grim weight of the extended slowdown, the poll suggests, is deepening the public’s divisions  over government’s role in promoting prosperity and the widespread distrust of financial institutions and major companies. The survey also captures the emergence of attitudes that don’t fit easily  into the platform of either political party: a prickly “America First” streak anxious about the   outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and a censorious conviction that Americans summoned hard times on themselves through irresponsibility at all levels. Indeed, the belief that average  Americans must manage their finances more responsibly as the economic storm lingers is one of  the most powerful chords in the poll.

Whether there is some “new normal” that will guide political attitudes for years to come is one of the questions that will become urgent after November 2.

We’ll have a full preview of the September 14 primaries next Tuesday, but there are significant developments today in some of those contests.  Sarah Palin has just endorsed hyper-conservative Senate challenger Christine O’Donnell, who is trying to deny congressman and former governor Mike Castle the Republican nomination in Delaware. Castle is thought to be one of the GOP’s most important recruitment successes. If he loses to O’Donnell, it will be a major triumph for the “true conservative”/Tea Party forces in the Republican Party, and would probably make Democrat Chris Coons the front-runner for a Democratic seat long thought to be lost.

Up in New Hampshire, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte’s once prohibitive lead for the Republican nomination to succeed Sen. Judd Gregg is also in doubt, with conservative Ovide Lamontagne surging in recent polls even as Ayotte’s negatives rise from relentless pounding by a third candidate, self-funder Bill Binnie.  And in the District of Columbia, Washington mayor Adrian Fenty is in dire danger of losing re-election to District Council Chairman Vincent Gray despite generally positive ratings of the direction of the city, in a contest featuring significant racial polarization in Gray’s favor.

No surprises in West Virginia, Louisiana

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

It’s another Tuesday, and believe it or not, there are no primaries today!  In fact, the next batch is not until September 14, when seven states plus the District of Columbia hold elections. This last weekend, however, voters in Louisiana and West Virginia went to the polls, with the latter limited to a special primary election for the late Robert Byrd’s Senate seat.

West Virginia

The results there were absolutely predictable, with Gov. Joe Manchin easily defeating Ken Hechler for the Democratic nod, and 2008 Senate nominee Jon Raese winning the Republican bid without breaking a sweat. Given the refusal of better-known Republicans to take on Manchin, this contest will provide a pretty good test of generic Republican strength in a red-leaning state where Democrats have often dominated in non-presidential elections.

Louisiana

Down in Louisiana, Senate candidates David Vitter (R) and Charlie Melancon (D) had no trouble winning their parties’ nominations.  The more interesting contests were in two House districts.  In LA-02, where Republican Joseph Cao pulled off a flukey win in 2008 over the ethically challenged Bill Jefferson, state legislator Cedric Richmond (D), the well-financed consensus choice of both New Orleans and DC Democrats, easily won the nomination without a runoff.  This is perhaps the ripest Democratic House pickup opportunity in the nation.  But in Melancon’s LA-03, a ripe Republican pickup opportunity, front-runner Jeff Landry, the beneficiary of Tea Party and Christian Right support, just missed avoiding a October 2 runoff against former state House Speaker Hunt Downer.   The runoff will boost the uphill candidacy of Democrat Ravi Sangisetty, who has raised an impressive amount of money.

Alaska

A major bit of unfinished business from last Tuesday’s primaries continued to play out today, as Alaska election officials began to count an estimated 25,000 absentee and provisional ballots.  Former judge Joe Miller leads incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski by 1,668 votes, and things are getting nasty already with Miller’s campaign alleging vote-tampering by the Murkowski camp.  On another front, the Alaska Libertarian Party decided against offering Murkowski its ballot line should she lose the GOP nomination. That means her options would be limited to a write-in campaign.  The Libertarian action was bad news for Democratic candidate Scott McAdams, though the hatefulness surrounding the Republican contest could still give him an opening.

Delaware

Meanwhile, in Delaware (another Senate contest where Republicans were assumed to have a virtual lock, in Delaware) the Tea Party Express has decided to weigh in on behalf of insurgent conservative candidate Christine O’Donnell, who is challenging Republican party establishment favorite Mike Castle.

New Hampshire

Similarly, in NH, longtime front-running Republican Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte may be getting nervous following the endorsement of hard-core conservative Ovide Lamontagne by the New Hampshire (nee Manchester) Union-Leader.  Democrat Paul Hodes has been leading Lamontagne in general election test heats.

North Carolina

And in yet another race often conceded to Republicans, a new PPP survey of NC (which involved a switchover by PPP from registered to likely voters) shows Democrat Elaine Marshall hanging in there against Sen. Richard Burr, trailing him 43-38 with 6% going to a Libertarian candidate.

It would be ironic, to say the least, if Democratic control of the Senate were saved by unlikely wins in Alaska, Delaware or North Carolina (not to mention Nevada, where most observers wrote off Harry Reid as early as last year), but it’s always possible.

Florida

And then there’s Florida, where two recent polls have shown Charlie Crist falling significantly behind Marco Rubio.  Crist is in real danger of losing crucial Democratic support to freshly minted nominee Kendrick Meek, and is dancing around the key question of which party he would caucus with in the Senate.

The game of predicting Republican House gains is intensifying as we get closer to November, and this week GOPers are buzzing over a new Gallup House generic ballot poll that shows them with a ten point lead, the largest in Gallup history.  But as Pollster.com’s Mark Blumenthal explains, this result looks a lot like a random-noise outlier, particularly when you compare it to the most recent Newsweek generic ballot poll, which shows the two parties tied.  The overall trendlines, though, are hardly comforting for Democrats.

Time for a One-Two Punch for Campaign Reform

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010
Daniel Weeks



Daniel Weeks is the president of Americans for Campaign Reform.

by Daniel Weeks

In its recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions are entitled to the same First Amendment freedoms as flesh-and-blood human beings, thereby overturning decades of settled law limiting corporate influence in elections. With political analysts predicting a torrent of new spending by special interest groups in the fall elections, congressional leaders are advancing new legislation aimed at blunting the worst effects of the Supreme Court ruling.

Introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Castle (R-DE), the DISCLOSE Act would place commonsense limits on corporate independent expenditures and require CEOs and major funders to take credit for the political ads they make. The legislation rightly restricts electioneering expenditures by corporations with a significant foreign ownership stake, as well as those that benefit from large-scale government contracts or bailouts. In addition, the legislation would greatly increase transparency and disclosure requirements on corporations, unions, trade associations and other incorporated entities, bipartisan measures that are in accordance with our long tradition of constitutionally protected disclosure.

While the design of specific provisions, including the appropriate threshold for government contractor restrictions, is open to debate, the DISCLOSE Act represents a necessary first step to stem the anticipated flood of special interest money post-Citizens United. Democratic leaders have promised swift action and a House vote on the legislation after the Memorial Day recess.

But Congress cannot content itself with incremental fixes to a system of special interest funding that’s rotten at the core. Fundamental reform of the nation’s pay-to-play system will not come by imposing new limits on private campaign spending, but by changing the very source of money that funds campaigns. Bipartisan legislation to establish a new system of citizen-funded elections has already gained the support of 175 members of Congress and dozens of grassroots organizations representing millions of concerned citizens from across the political spectrum.

Under the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, congressional candidates who attract a broad base of public support would be eligible to receive matching federal dollars if they agree to forego special interest money and raise only small donations from their constituents. A four-to-one match on in-state donations of $100 or less would ensure that serious, hardworking candidates have the funds they need to mount a competitive campaign, even when opposed by wealthy individuals or groups.

Indeed, academic analysis of the relationship between congressional campaign spending and election outcomes has consistently found a competitive spending threshold below which candidates are unable to effectively compete and above which additional spending produces negligible returns. Candidates running for the U.S. House between 1992 and 2006 required between $1 million and $1.5 million (in 2006 dollars) to mount competitive campaigns, while spending beyond that threshold did not measurably increase the likelihood of success.

By giving small donors an incentive to invest in political campaigns and rewarding candidates who demonstrate broad public support — regardless of wealth — such a reform has the potential to rein in undue influence by special interest groups and restore the public’s trust. And far from imposing new limits on political speech, the Fair Elections Now Act would expand free speech by enabling new voices to enter the political debate regardless of wealth.

Congress is presented with an historic opportunity to right the wrongs of an activist Supreme Court with a one-two punch for reform: by passing an evenhanded DISCLOSE Act to increase transparency and accountability on the part of corporate funders of political speech, and by passing the Fair Elections Now Act to ensure that elections for public office are owned by the American people, not wealthy special interests. Let’s hope they’re up for the fight.

Photo credit: Dbking’s Photostream

About Those “Green Shoots” of Moderation

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Yesterday I wrote about the conservative effort to convince the news media and others that crazy people were being kept under control by the Tea Party Movement and the Republican Party. There’s an even less credible media narrative kicking around that was pursued the same day by Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times: Republican moderates are making a comeback!

If you understandably missed this development, here’s how Hook puts it:

With healthcare legislation mired in partisanship, “tea party” activists on the march and GOP leadership dominated by conservatives, Capitol Hill looks like a parched landscape for the withered moderate wing of the Republican Party.But green shoots are sprouting in Washington and on the campaign trail. A small band of Republican moderates in the Senate broke a logjam on jobs legislation. They added to their ranks with the arrival of another New England Republican, Scott Brown. And several moderate Republicans are in a good position to win Senate seats in November.

The article is loaded with qualifiers of this dubious proposition, but not enough of them. The jobs bill where “Republican moderates” — including Tea Party favorite Scott Brown — offered a few votes for cloture was a vastly watered-down $15 billion measure that included a payroll tax credit for employers long beloved of Republicans (indeed, that’s why it was in the bill). Once cloture was invoked, 13 GOPers voted for the bill, including such decidedly non-moderate senators as James Inhofe (OK), Richard Burr (NC) and Hatch (UT). Indeed, the only reason the bill was even controversial for Republicans is that it was offered by the Democratic leadership in lieu of a much more expensive and tax-cut laden bill worked out between Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA)  that most Democrats intensely disliked. Anyone expecting this development to lead to an outbreak of bipartisanship or a breakdown of Republican obstruction is smoking crack.

Hook’s optimistic spin on “moderate Republican” prospects for election to the Senate is equally off-base. She cites Rep. Mark Kirk (IL), Rep. Mike Castle (DE), Gov. Charlie Crist (FL), former Rep. Tom Campbell (CA), and former Rep. Rob Simmons (CT) as potential additions to the “moderate” ranks. Kirk moved hard right to win his primary, and is running even with his Democratic opponent. Campbell is best known at present as the object of primary opponent Carly Fiorina’s cult favorite “demon sheep” web ad; I’d bet serious money he doesn’t win his primary, and the winner likely won’t beat Democrat Barbara Boxer, either. Simmons is struggling against a well-financed primary opponent, and is trailing Democrat Richard Blumenthal by double digits. Crist is political toast. I’ll grant that Castle is in good shape, and has a quite moderate record (so far). But even if Castle and Kirk win, their election would no more than offset the retirements of George Voinovich and Judd Gregg in the less-than-loudly-conservative ranks. And Hook also doesn’t mention that at least two GOP senators who occasionally cooperate with Democrats, Bob Bennett and John McCain, could get purged in primaries.

As for the forward-looking optimism of Hooks’ “green shoots” metaphor, it should be noted that Castle is 70 years old; Simmons is 67; Campbell is 56; Crist is 53; and Kirk is 50. Even by the geriatric standards of the Senate, this group ain’t exactly the wave of the future. They also don’t look much like America.

Sure, if the Republlican caucus in the Senate expands significantly this November, it is going to include a handful of members who don’t regularly howl at the moon about “socialism.” But any suggestion that the ancient tribe of moderate Republicans is much more than an anthropological curiosity these days is just not credible. It says a lot of the direction of the GOP that the early 2012 presidential favorite of “moderates” appears to be Mitt Romney, who spent the entire 2008 cycle campaigning as the “true conservative” in the race.

If words like “moderate” have any real meaning, it’s not a word that should be applied to any major faction in today’s Republican Party.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.